I wrote my senators and congressmen as I do a couple of times a year, this time asking them to co-sponsor the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. That's the legislative effort to nullify proposed HHS regulations which force religious institutions to fund abortifacients and voluntary sterilizations or confine themselves to treating only their own.

I always write short, polite, factual letters and refrain from insulting people or telling them how to do their job. For my pains I have a string of the most preposterous and insulting "bug off" letters back from purported public servants. Here's the latest.

Senator Mikulski just wrote me back on conscience rights. Her response? I can't defend your right of conscience, or insurance companies will stop covering blood transfusions.

Here's her letter in full:

Thank you for getting in
touch with me to express your support for the Respect for Rights of Conscience
Act of 2011 (S. 1467). It's good to hear from you.

I want you to know that I
have given the abortion issue very serious consideration. As someone who
represents such a diverse constituency, I support respecting the individual
conscience, so that each woman can decide for herself whether and when to have
a child. I also support respecting the rights of medical
students and doctors in their choice whether or not to perform
abortions. Provider conscience protections allow health care workers to
refuse to provide health care services based on moral or religious objections,
and I have voted in favor of these protections.

I am, however, concerned
about the scope of S. 1467. This legislation would allow any health care
insurer or institution to refuse to cover or provide any health care service
based on the beliefs of an individual affiliated with the
institution. This goes much further than protecting the rights of an
individual medical provider. This could result in health insurance plans
refusing to cover a range of medical services – from organ transplantation to
blood transfusion to family planning services – because of the beliefs
of one individual. Similarly, this legislation could result in a
hospital denying a woman needed medical care in the event of a life-threatening
pregnancy.

I appreciate knowing of your
support for the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011 (S.
1467). This legislation is currently pending in the Senate Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). I will keep your thoughts
in mind should this legislation come before the Senate.

Thanks again for
writing. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in the
future.

Sincerely,
Barbara A. Mikulski
United States Senator

Blood transfusions? Seriously? (Actually, I would have no problem if the Jehovah's Witnesses ran an agency if they refused to cover blood transfusions for their members presuming that policy was fully disclosed. Nothing requires a person to work for a church group.) The stupider accusation is that a single member of a company can block care for anyone on a whim; that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the right of a free association of people not to be complicit in actions they find morally odious.

Senator Mikulski "respects" the "conscience right" of a woman to abort her child, and believes Church groups have no right not to participate in that act.